Before There Was Welfare There Was Charity

I read somewhere that Ted Turner now owns more than 2.1 million acres PERSONALLY.

Personally I think if you have an animal - with a bodily system, and there's only so much blood in it, you shouldn't let parasites suck on it until there's nothing left.

a nuclear war it seems indeed......



a picture is worth a thousand words? then what is a video worth showing osama standing on top of the world after popping out of his grave repeatedly with alciada help? I am sure with the original story belivers it will fly over their head.

Yeah we need a huge military to conquer the world.

If the point of this thread is were broke and can't afford welfare I choose to save money by stopping all foreign aid, both economic and military for foreign countries. U.S. Foreign Aid Summary I also propose we get rid of the patriot Act and get rid of the tsa and department of homeland security. I propose the federal government stop funding national campaigns as well. I would also start closing military bases around the world.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
If the point of this thread is were broke and can't afford welfare I choose to save money by stopping all foreign aid, both economic and military for foreign countries. U.S. Foreign Aid Summary I also propose we get rid of the patriot Act and get rid of the tsa and department of homeland security. I propose the federal government stop funding national campaigns as well. I would also start closing military bases around the world.

If the point of this thread were that before the rise of the welfare state there were private charities that did their job without the intervention of government, and that community meant something more than a gathering of people, there would still be people entering the thread declaring this thread uncaring and cruel.

That said, I am in agreement with cutting foreign aid, and with all due respect to the men and women who serve in the military, I am advocating we starve the beast we call government and do away with income taxation all together, which means cutting a hell of a lot more than foreign aid and military budgets.

All people have unalienable rights, and among them is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of property. If land is for sale, people have the right to purchase that land, and if people purchase this land and want to sell it at a later date, they have this right as well, but property goes well beyond land. Our bodies our property. Our labor is our property and the fruits of that labor are our property, and the income we earn by the fruits of our labor is not public. It is no ones business how much the other person is earning, our only business is how much we are earning.

If people want to come together collectively and form a commune, under a capitalist system they would have every right to do this and succeed or fail based upon the merits of their commune. Conversely, if under a communist or socialist system, people wanted to function in a free and open market they would not be allowed to and as Proudhon once famously stated: "All property is theft!" This is the view of the socialist and the communist, but it is not as if they - each and everyone as individuals - think that what they deem theirs is public, only every other persons property.

If the point of this thread were to spark a reasonable and civil debate regarding the value of current "welfare" programs versus private charity designed to help the poor, there would still be plenty of people who would flat out refuse to have a reasonable and civil debate and would instead cry that those questioning the value of current "welfare" programs are big meanies and have no "ethics" and on and on and on refusing to simply be reasonable and debate that point.

Plunder is plunder, and among the plunderers it is always the same, they refuse to even entertain the idea that plunder is wrong, instead offering up negotiations like: "if the point of this thread is were broke and can't afford welfare I choose to save money by stopping all foreign aid, both economic and military for foreign countries".

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


If private charities worked we never would have had the Need for welfare. The country disagrees with you.

If private charities worked we never would have had the Need for welfare

Private charity has been around for hundreds of years,the act which begins in the heart,and the home, and should rightly stay there.

When people advocate their morality using force to accomplish "taking care of everyone" they seek government legislated morality which would be the same as the church trying to legislate charity, those same people would be condemning it,but hey government knows best.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

If private charities worked we never would have had the Need for welfare. The country disagrees with you.

You've just made my point. The plunderers have no regard for the rights of others and believe that all they have to do is collectively rob people and claim they have this authority through some democratic process that has no Constitutional basis. They will ignore all the other people in the country who do agree with me, believing that it doesn't matter and more than willing to claim they are the bigger bully and go out of their way to pick a fight.

These plunderers will ignore all data that contradicts their assertion, refuse to discuss and simply declare: "The country disagrees with you" and the implication is clear...unalienable rights be damned!

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux


These plunderers will ignore all data that contradicts their assertion, refuse to discuss and simply declare: "The country disagrees with you" and the implication is clear...unalienable rights be damned!

We have blurred the line,between unalienable rights,with those who believe ALL "rights", are unalienable. Welfare is a Job,for many . Need has become blurred with greed. Begging has become a business,for some. Charity's have become a great business,for some.

Take the “Children’s Cancer Fund of America.” The Powell, Tennessee charity says it provides aid and financial assistance to children struggling with the disease. And donors were generous when Associated Community Services came calling, shelling out over $4 million in 2009. But when the money finally made its way to the cancer charity, only a small fraction remained, just $815,156. Associated Community Services kept the rest, almost $3.3 million.

All told, Associated Community Services reported taking $17,713,325 in donations, according to a 2009 report by the New York Attorney General. But only $5,966,173 made its way to charities.

Company pockets most of charitable donations to cancer, veterans, children's groups

The numbers tell a bleak story. In 1996, California had 21 percent of the nation’s welfare cases. Today, 32 percent of all welfare cases in the United States are in California, even though we only represent 12 percent of the total U.S. population. Consider this troubling comparison; California is nearly twice as big as New York state, but we have five times as many welfare cases.

Despite being a state famous for opportunity and promise, California lags much of the nation when it comes to moving people from welfare to work, according to the federal government. Only 22 percent of welfare recipients in California who are required to meet federal work minimums are working. According to the Public Policy Institute of California, our state is one of only nine that does not unconditionally enforce the federal government’s five-year lifetime limit on cash welfare assistance. These flaws in our welfare system, coupled with a monthly cash check that is almost 70 percent higher than the national average, work against the goal of helping more welfare recipients leave welfare for a life of greater independence and dignity.

California's flawed welfare system

I am right to say,Americas moral compass,is broken,along with its willingness to fix the issues.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


You call people that receive food stamps plunderers?? You call the poorest in the country plunderers?

I know Chrysler motor company has been bailed out multiple times by our government, I know GE doesn't pay taxes and our government Subsidies the oil and natural gas industry yet you wanna focus on the poorest people in the country....

Who are the plunderers in this country?

You are aware that people receiving welfare make below the poverty level? Yet they are plundering the government??

Your portraying the poorest in the country as a great evil. You should be ashamed.

Do you equally hate full time wal mart employees who must depend on food stamps because they won't pay a liveable wage?

This whole thread has become one huge circular argument of which many of the participants' thought processes closely resemble that of my six year old son. I attempted to state an opinion and was attacked for doing so. Afterwards I attempted to apologize to all whom I had offended. I agreed with Jean Paul Zodeaux and offered some suggested solutions to the problem he seems to believe exists, which I agreed does exist. He responds to that by childishly refusing to "dumb himself down to my level" to continue the discussion with me while feeling the need to not only bring my "honor" into question but also insulting my intelligence, something I have yet to do even after being attacked for stating an opinion, something the same man earlier claimed we should all have a right to. The man also speaks in a tone used as if to scold or ridicule me for claiming alliances with another poster of which I have provided no reason to lead one to such a belief, I have neither agreed with nor disagreed with the poster those supposed alliances lay with. Such actions are very unprofessional in what should be an intellectual debate between adults and in my opinion render any statements made by the person doing so to be invalid. This is all just starting to resemble a grade school playground argument so maybe we should all just accept that we have been acting like a bunch of children and move on to more important things.

reply to post by doomedtoday


ATS reminds me of congress, there is no middle ground and all sides are forced into extreme positions.

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

You call people that receive food stamps plunderers?? You call the poorest in the country plunderers?

I know Chrysler motor company has been bailed out multiple times by our government, I know GE doesn't pay taxes and our government Subsidies the oil and natural gas industry yet you wanna focus on the poorest people in the country....

Who are the plunderers in this country?

You are aware that people receiving welfare make below the poverty level? Yet they are plundering the government??

Your portraying the poorest in the country as a great evil. You should be ashamed.

Do you equally hate full time wal mart employees who must depend on food stamps because they won't pay a liveable wage?

edit on 29-5-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2012 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)

This what I have noticed to - this thread in my social circle would

Be absurd. We are actually discussing how the people with the

Least are placing the biggest burden on our resources and that

Point itself is simply dumbfounding. While a relatively small group

Of businessmen cost this economy Trillions, all passed off onto

The American tax payers, in a myriad of ways. We are being

Asked to honor property, by the same political faction that

Rallies behind the biggest thieves this world has ever known.

But in the most practical way, nobody has bothered to tell

Me where the hell tens of millions of people will go when

They are unable to make rent? If this is a serious proposal

With any shred of logic behind it, I wanna know how anyone

Thinks making millions upon millions of Americans homeless

Will help America? Or help the business world if that is

The "meaning of existence" ? Where will they sleep and pee

And poop??? Basic logic here

Originally posted by Beanskinner Basic logic

As I have stated before, participating in this "debate" is much like arguing with my six year old child.

The answer you seek does not exist. I'm sure a reasonable answer does exist, I would imagine there are multiple answers but the people you are debating with are unable to discover one so they respond with a question intended to distract you from asking for the answer. It's really rather simple though, the people you are attempting to have a debate with believe that those people should be left to rot, such is implied by the lack of an answer. Don't ask why they wont just come out and admit that fact, it isn't as if they haven't already done so time and time again throughout the thread. Maybe they are worried that we will think less of them if they come out and admit in very clear wording that in their opinions the poor all deserve to rot. I don't know about you guys but I honestly do not feel that it is possible for me to think any less of some of them, though I will admit that if real answers to the questions that have been asked were to be provided then I would think better of them, no matter what those answers may be. Properly answering questions would be an honorable approach to the debate but what do I know about "honor"...

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Your laughable assertion that a "[citation needed]" draws attention to the fact that you either did not read, or ignored both doomedtoday's insistence that sources not be provided here:

You claimed that this theory is testable, and failed. I think such a bold claim requires reliable source, regardless of his request.

I have also, in another thread, most recently pointed out that I cannot convert these PDF files you keep linking, so I am unable to read in its entirety any PDF files you link. I can read them if they are emailed to me where I can click view. Are you willing to U2U me so I can give you my email address, or will you ignore this too, and just keep linking PDF files you know I can't read?

Sorry, I forgot about that. Sure, U2U sent. You should try to install free pdf viewer such as Foxit Reader, or save pdf files to hard disk before opening them (that would get around the browser pdf plugin, if thats causing the problem).

The author, acknowledging first that the entire notion of welfare is wholly subjective, secondly acknowledges that this extreme position would unlikely be popular among economists, politicians, and even probably the people.

It is a fair conclusion Roos has reached in asserting that welfare is not see easily measured, and certainly not as easy as you think it is.

Yes, as all value judgements, its ultimately subjective. But once we agree on certain simple, almost utilitarian premises (feeling of wellbeing is good, feeling of suffering is bad - health is good, education is good, poverty and illness is bad, equality of chances is good), I dont think there is a problem with objective measurement of welfare to the accuracy needed.

The simple answer to falsification is this: Both liberty and welfare are components of Constitutional principles, but if welfare is implemented by way of taxation (force) then it is antithetical to liberty and what would arise is a contradiction within the contradiction so as to render that document invalid.

And whats the problem with welfare being under some circumstances antithetical to liberty (more specifically, Lockian negative liberty concept)? Why do you assume that the relationship between negative liberty and welfare must be linear everywhere increasing function?
It wont make Constitution invalid, since it allows for taxation (liberty in the Constitutional sense thus obviously does not mean liberty to not be taxed, or anarchocapitalist concept of liberty), and allows for the government to enact policies for promoting the welfare of the people.

Besides, even if his point was true, this is not a falsification of the effectiveness of welfare state, but falsification of the consistency of the Constitution.

You have declared a right to receive a basic education, and I would not disagree with this, however, no other right is funded by government and in this distinction you undo yourself.

Protection of all basic rights is funded by the government. Your life, liberty and property is protected by the police funded by the government from taxes.

You may argue that government should only protect the right to education from external threats, and not positively enforce it, but we are talking about children here, not adults - they have no means on their own to positively enforce their rights, they are dependent on the adults, which have a right to negatively limit their liberty. Isnt this an external threat?

People have the right to life, but government is not responsible for the expense of that life. People have the right to liberty, but government is not responsible for the expense of any individuals liberty, and people have the right to pursue happiness but government does not have to pick up the tab for that.

Maybe not under Lockian concept of negative rights. But thats only an argument of you subscribe to this philosophy. I dont. I think basic human rights should be protected by the government both reactively (from external threat), and positively (from internal constraints), if we have the means to do so. Because negative/positive distinction does not make sense from utilitarian (consequentialist) standpoint. For a hungry man, its irrelevant if the hunger is caused by someone stealing his food, or him being unable to obtain any food. The hunger is the same. For an ill man, it is irrelevant if someone stole his medicine, or he is unable to obtain it. The result (consequence) is the same.

I dont think libertarian state optimally maximises the wellbeing (minimizes suffering) of sentient creatures (which is the libertarian quest). Sure, there are worse establishments (tyranny, totalitarian systems, or anarchy on the opposite end), but there are also better (social democracy).

If you are so convinced that there would not be enough scholarships to go around, why are you so convinced there is enough taxable income to do so?

It can be determined that there would be, both by economic calculation, and empirically (there are many countries with government funded education up to postgraduate level).

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Stop pretending that you've shown that welfare does what you're demanding of me. You have not, and you ignore the campaign problems Obama faces in colleges regarding their legitimate concerns. You've ignored the evidence of failure of welfare in just L.A. alone

Again, anecdotal evidence. Compare these cases to the number of people helped.

As I said, many welfare systems around the world have specific problems because they are poorly implemented, not because welfare state as a paradigm has failed. I think these can be easily fixed by better implementations. Your L.A. examples are certainly easy to fix.

The Contribution Bonus welfare system

and you ignore any data that contradicts your knee jerk beliefs.

There was no statistical data, only anecdotal evidences so far from your part. I have provided a study that looks at the data and concludes welfare state has accomplished significant decrease in poverty, and increase in equality of chances (despite some of its problems).

if charity had worked as well as you make it out to, there would have been no reason for welfare to have been created...

every majoy religion, hindu, islam, christianity, and probablly budhism, they all kind of tell the followers to be charitable...
look around the world!! look at afghanistan before we invaded!! look at egypt's coptic christians who literally live on piles of garbage and sort through it daily hoping to find something useful! look at india, heck, look here in the us, where a judge will send a kid to jail because both mom and dad deserted her and her siblings and she's working two jobs and therefore is so tired that she is missing school!!

and like I already stated, the best charity that can be provided to a person is the realistic ability for them to fend for themselves... the people who have the most money, who are in the best position to be charitable, are too busy looking at the bottom line, worrying about their stock values, and company profits that they refuse to even pay their employees a wage that will keep them from needing charity. their greed has tanked our economy, they have committed downright fraud to send masses of people out into the streets to live, and our society, and it's ruling class have such kind hearts, they cannot bear the idea that some of these people who committed the fraud should go to jail!!!

there is nothing charitable about pushing the workers down so far that they are in need of welfare or charity!!!
neither is an adequate solution to the problem!!!

Originally posted by doomedtoday

Originally posted by Beanskinner Basic logic

As I have stated before, participating in this "debate" is much like arguing with my six year old child.

The answer you seek does not exist. I'm sure a reasonable answer does exist, I would imagine there are multiple answers but the people you are debating with are unable to discover one so they respond with a question intended to distract you from asking for the answer. It's really rather simple though, the people you are attempting to have a debate with believe that those people should be left to rot, such is implied by the lack of an answer. Don't ask why they wont just come out and admit that fact, it isn't as if they haven't already done so time and time again throughout the thread. Maybe they are worried that we will think less of them if they come out and admit in very clear wording that in their opinions the poor all deserve to rot. I don't know about you guys but I honestly do not feel that it is possible for me to think any less of some of them, though I will admit that if real answers to the questions that have been asked were to be provided then I would think better of them, no matter what those answers may be. Properly answering questions would be an honorable approach to the debate but what do I know about "honor"...

It is hard for me to accept that grown people are incapable of

Nothing more than this, but it seems like there is a wall that

Prevents, what I would call logic, from seeping in. But I realize

It can also be a debate tactic, just brush off the sting of the truth

And change focus??? I do feel there is some level of dishonesty

That is hard to look past for the most part. Not one person who has

Been debating the con of welfare has offered up where these people

Will sleep and what it will cost our society. Does a dramatic influx of

Homeless people by nearly 20% Change the face of America? Or

Do we really think a shanty culture will be good for America? I bet

If I put one of these fellows in the middle of a shaty town in Mexico

They would be terrified. In the end I also notice that they supply anger

And outrage but zero solutions, which is the mark of selfishness and

Unreasonable people in my experience. I have always sought to

Resolve conflict by being open and answering questions, while the

Cons side seem to be inclined to be aloof in anyway that betters thier

Position. It is no wonder why one group tries to solve problems, while

The other group ingnores them all together.

I don't believe anybody in their right mind would say welfare is awesome - not even people who are making use of it. How could it be awesome when it's very existence reveals an enormous, glaring problem?

I love the idea of charity picking up where government leaves off. It's just that sometimes - charity is kinda choosy about who it decides to help. Even then, when and where charity can help, it's often just as mismanaged (and corrupt) as government. Sometimes the charity decides to help out it's own self

Funny thing :-)

The alternative is sink or swim I guess. I know some people like that idea - I don't. It's not a charitable approach - also not a useful approach. But it's the approach we often hear from good, strong swimmers...

So - I hear this idea - that charity is enough. I don't hear anything about how it will be enough

The thing about idealists (and - I include myself in this category) is they're all about ideals - not so much with the nuts and bolts and brass tacks of it all

Makes no difference whether your ideals are more to the left or the right

in 1790 the population of the United States was around 3,893,635. That includes the slaves. As of 2010 it's now around 308,745,538

This is going to take a little more than some sympathy, making up a spare cot in the front room and holding a bake sale

Nobody - including me - is going to argue that we can keep handling it the way we do now

But I am definitely not hearing how things will work in a hypothetical situation where government is greatly reduced and the needy are cared for the way they were before welfare as we know it existed. I also don't hear an explanation or description of whether or not that care was ever actually adequate in the first place

I knew someone once who was left fatherless when he was five years old. He had two sisters. His mother took in sewing to make ends meet - but wasn't in a position to hold a full time job. Assuming there was a full time job to be had. Daycare wasn't an option then - for many it isn't an option even now. She had more than she could handle - and just having enough food in the house was a constant struggle

In any case - an Uncle took in this five year old boy and raised him as his own. Except - he wasn't raised the same as his cousins. He was put to work, beaten - and sexually abused

That's just one story of course - I have more. But - I think you might be able to see what I'm getting at

No solution is going to be the perfect solution - what we're looking for is the best solution we can come up with. I'm not sure charity alone is up to the task

Suggestions?

thought processes closely resemble that of my six year old son.

Even a six year old knows that is is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to them. and while were at it:

This country is a home,government is mommy and daddy who have ran up their credit cards to pay for their bills, and now the children are throwing a temper tantrum acting like a two year,because they are not getting their way. and just sitting there saying, "gimme,gimme more".

Yep over 300,000,000 Americans who live in this country and half of those people have to be fed by mommy and daddy who steals,who borrows to placate their children,

And of course all that stress that is put on mommy and daddy make them fight constantly,both want to get a divorce, but they stay together "for the good of the children" which has created the welfare state,which has ended up much like all those films and tv show's when parents can't afford to feed their children they sell them into slavery, debt slavery to be more specific to China.

reply to post by neo96


Yet again you offer no solutions, just attacks on the poor. Your doing all you can to demonize the poorest people in this country.